Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

JPabUc Sentiment . Athens. August 31, 1832. iTo TVm. Camming, J. P. King, anJ.t. Slaughter, Esquires. Gjintlemen, — l have received from you, the organ of a meeting of die citizens ol Richmond County, a communication accom panied by their resolutions, in which a re quest is made to know my “sentiments in regard to Nullification.” This shall b promptly done. But I owe it to a sense of Self respect, as well as of candour to you, to state, that in the lace of your third resolu tion, containing a threat to vote against any candidate who advocates that doctrine, 1 should certainly have declined a compliance with the wishes of your meeting, but for a consideration much higher than that of ap peasing a political denunciation, or essaying to conciliate a doubtful favor. It carries no terrors to me. But the crisis has arrived when every man should speak out boldly, c’ l whatever may be the consequences to himself, to meet them like a man, and en deavour to save if possible the constitution of his country. To this end it has been my wish to address the people of Georgia, as well •for the purpose of arousing them to a proper sense of their wrongs, as to disabuse their minds of a carefully lodged prejudice intend ed to impair that hold on their affections, which 1 had fondly hoped had been well earn ed on my part. Your address has furnished that opportunity. As your meeting, doubt less, in a spirit of what it conceived to be its rights, has subjected me to a political cate chism, under a menace, will it oe offended, if 1, in my turn, without such rigour, seek to know “ what arc their sentiments in regard” to Mr. Jefferson as a statesman? He has merited, and justly received, the title of an Apostle of Freedom. lie is the great oracle ol southern politics. In his opinions every statesman is safe who has tiie true and proper veneration for civil liberty. Will any thing lie has said be good authority with your meet ing ? If so, then mark his own words, uttered m opposition to the Sedition Law, one, not more unconstitutional than the tariff. “When (said this great man) powers arc assumed, which have not been delegated, a NULLIFI CATION of the.ACT is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY : That EVERY STATE has a NATURAL RIGHT, in cases not within the compact, to NULLIFY, of their OWN AUTHORITY, all assumptions of power by others, WITHIN THEIR LIMITS: that without this right, they would he under the dominion, absolute and unlimited., of whom soever might exercise this right of judgement for them.” Here, then, you have my opinion in full.— Of Mr. Jell erson’s political creed i shall never be afraid or ashamed. Whenever his doc- Jxiucs ceased to he considered orthodox, by the southern people, for they never were in o lour in the north, 1 feel entirely confluent I am unfit to be their representative, and the execution of the threat of your meeting can never conic too soon for tny own inclination. It is true that Mr. Jefferson has not pointed out the mode and mapner of nullifying a law ; but this must be left to the wisdom and discretion ol the state whose rights arc in vaded by the assumed power, and must be as v arious as the acts are varied that violated the •constitution. Any plan, I care not what t is, that rids the state of the oppressive pleasure, is a nullification of that measure.— To nullify is simply nothing more or less than to render null and void. All unconsti tutional laws are null and void. Is this objected to ! I presume not. Then your meeting, in its’very first resolution, lias declared that the tarifl act is “ unjust and inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution.” Is it too much I I say that an unjust law, one inconsistent v ith the spirit oi tlic constitution, ought to be null and void f As much as this doctrine is now derided, I affirm, without the fear of contradiction, that it is the very doctrine upon which Georgia has acted' from the foundation of her government. And I will now prove it. 1 lay down these positions: •L t. That an unconstitutional law is NO 1. VvV, and no man or community is bound to obey it, nay,they are bound to resist it,forev fc;7 man is sworn to.support the constitution. ~J. A law “ unjust and inconsistent with Ue spit it of the constitution,” is a violation of t ic constitution, because it is a perversion of that instrument, a perversion is a breach of its intention, and according to all rules cf con struction, legal or moral, .the intention must govern. ;<J. That the general government can pass i:o law for which it does not find an authori ty in the constitution, and that if it dries, it is i.o morq. binding upon the states than if pass ed by a foreign nation, for as to all ungranted j o'vcrs it is to these states a completely for eign government. . i he two first positions need no commenta ry, tiio last suggests these reflections. Sup pose Great Britain should pass an act for the benefit of her manufacturers, to operate in Georgia, what would the state do ! I care Jolt what, but w hate vet was tlone, precisely mat ought to be done, in relation to the same act passed by the federal government, fur the right is wholly and absolutely usurped in both cases. It drouth Carolina, our neigh boring State, were to pass such a Lw, every body would see its absurdity, and Georgia would nullify it in an instant; then where is t.,e difference between one state and twenty three stalest Where is the difference be tween the northern states doing this thin<r, in their.separate state legislatures, or under the pretence of constitute nal authority, com bining and meeting in the halls of Congress fur the same peruse, if both methods b< equally out of the pale of the constitution? V> hy should we not as readily resist an usurp- \ *4 act of the general government as that of j any other government ? There is no reason I lor it, and in four distinct cases has the stab ! of Georgia applied, as Mr. Jefferson calls it,! this rightful remedy. j May i again respectfully ask your mooting,! “ what are its sentiments in regard” to Gov-; ernor Troup’s political principles ? He says, i “ whatever a state docs in its sovereign capaci- j *y, will be right.” Acting upon this princi-j Ijl'S ta.lSJ'r, whet; the general governw,;* attempted to annul the oh!, by what was call ed the new treaty, he solemnly declared n should not be done, stated boldly that he “ would employ all the limited means in his power to prevent it,” and ordered the Han cock troop of liorso to hold themselves in readiness. What stronger “ revolutionary tendency" could any measures exhibit ? But this was not all, the Secretary of War Ordered troops into tire nation to overawe the state:' listen, while perhaps the blood will curdle with indignation, at General Game’s despatch to that officer: “ Col. Chambers (said lie) with five companies of the first, and Major Donoho, with four companies of the fourth regiment of infantry, have taken the positions assigned them. viz. the former at Marshall’s Ferry, Flint river, A the latter at Princeton, Chattahoochie, with instructions correspond ing with yours of the 21st ot last month.”— Did this alarm Governor Troup ? Let me bring to your recollection that patriot’s reply to Air. Adams . “ The legislature of Georgia, will, at its first meeting, be advised to resist any effort which may be made to wre*3t from the state the territory acquired by that treaty, and no matter by whut authority that effort be made. If the legislature fail to vindicate that right, the responsibility will be theirs, not mine.” What became of the new treaty ? Georgia nullified it. She resisted the authority of the general government because its act was un constitutional, and being in the right, though force was not only threatened, but arrayed, she triumphed, and the old treaty was sus tained. So, the federal troops marched to the Flint river, and then marched back again. 'Phis is one act of nullification. I understand that the only objection to nul lification is, it lias a tendency to revolution and bloodshed, and to bring the federal gov ernment into contempt. What could so ef fectually produce all these events as the case I have just mentioned ? The second instance was the case of Tus rels. A mandate was sent from the Supreme Court of the United States, to suspend his ex ecution until he could he heard before that Court on a writ of error. What said the le gislature? Resolved, That the Governor and every other ot ficer of this State disregard any and every mand.oi and process that has been or shall be served upon him or.them, proceeding from the Supreme Court of the United States, for the purpose of arresting any of the criminal laws of this State. “ Resolved , That the Governor, with all the force and menus placed at his command, resist and repel any and every invasion from whatever quarter, up on the administration of the crimi.-Jul laws of this State.” What language can be stronger? -\nd do not the resolutions imply the probability of a conflict, that the state might have to battle it ; with the General Government? But when | the constitutional rights of a state are viola | ted, what other alternative is left? We read ’ from the lessons of the Revolution that the motto of our forefathers was liberty or death, and so far, 1 amproud to say, the conduct of Georgia has evinced to the world a noble vin dication of the maxim. in reference to the third instance, I must beg leave again to reiterate the enquiry to your meeting, “what are its sentiments in regard” lo the political course of Governor Lumpkin? For whatever may be their objec tions to that of Governor Troup, so far as re lates to these doctrines, he has been fully supported by the present Governor. At the last session oi the legislature, Governor Lumpkin communicated lothat body, that he had received two citations commanding the state of Georgia to appear in the supreme court to show cause why the judgments rendered in our state court against Worcester and But'* r, should not be set aside. What said the Governor on that occasion ? That which ought to command admiration of every friend of state rights. “ Any attempt (said he) to infringe the evident right of the sta’e to govern the entire population within its terri torial limits, and to punish all offences com mitted against its laws, within those limits, (due regard being had to the cases expressly excepted by the constitution cf the United States,) would be the usurpation of a power never granted hy the states.” And what u as to be the remedy in such cases of usurpa tion ? Hearken to the Governor: “Such uu attempt, whenever made, will challenge the most determined resistance, and if persevered in, will evidently eventuate in the annihila tion of our beloved country.” But was this all he said ? No! The best evidence of his principles yet remains, and is in exact accord ance with that of Governor Troup;— “In ex ercising (continued he) the authority of that department of the Government which de volves on me, l will DISREGARD ALL UN CONSTITUTIONAL REQUISITIONS OF WHATEVER CHARACTER OR ORIGIN THEY MAY BE, and to the best of my ability, will protect and defend the rights of the State, and use the means afforded me, to maintain its laws and constitution.” These are principles every way worthy of a states man, and such as every man should lx- proud, much Jess afraid, to avow. But let us mark the issue of this missionary case, and here I must ask again, “whatare the sentiments of your meeting in regard” lo the Missiona ries ? When 1 affirmed in Congress that “be fore the Missionaries would be taken from the Penitentiary by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court, Georgia would become a howling wilderness,” a letter from tire citv of Augusta, the place where your meeting was held, informed the Editor of the National In telligencer, that 1 did not speak the senti ments of the pupplc of Georgia. Now 1 had every reason to suppose he formed his opinion upon the views of his neighbors, if he spoke the truth; and it so, the political opinions of ihat city are at variance with the rest of the good people of Georgia, for the information tlins given by the Augusta letter has, in all its parts, been wholly unconfirmed. And this induced me to fear that there might be in interest in that flourishing city, not alto gether in unison with the good southern feeling of the rest of t lie state. Be this as it may, the decision of the supremo court has been nullified, or the matter is now thrown upon the general gov< rumen! to take its course.—lf it yields, the authority of that amrnsr asmaai&usjoaa,, ti -—— - - - . . . ■ .—n . _ .... - government ins been Held i.i perfect eon- j tempt and rendered null add void. If it proceeds, then all the consequences of revo-'' lutionary action, and the effusion of blood, so much dreaded, in relation to the tariff, must be the inevitable result. This decision purpoitstobe founded upon the intercourse law passed by Congress in 1802, to regulate trade with the Indians,and also upon the solemn Treaties ol ttie United States, declared by the constitution to be the supreme law of the land. Now it is resisted by the State of Georgia,upon the ground that tne law and the Treaties are unconstitutional. What is the plain and fair inference to be drawn from this case ? If a state cun rightfully resist a law which has not only gone through the usual forms of legislation, sanc tioned by the Executive and Legislative branches of government, but has been pro nounced constitutional by the highest Judi ■ial power, that is, passed all the guards that j cun give the stamp and authority oi luw,sure )ly there can be but little cause to dread a similar oppossition to the tariff act founded upon an equally flagrant usurpation. But we are told they are not similar cases. Let us examine this point. The intercourse law is founded upon that power ill the constitution, winch gives to Congress the right to regulate commerce with the Indian Tribes. The tariff' act is said to rest upon the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Now mark, both of those poweisare found side by side, in tljc OLh section of the Ist article of the federal constitution. Suppose both laws, fur the first time, had been passed at the last Congress. The first, containing a provision that the Cherokee nation of Indians within the limits of Georgia, was an independent nation, anu not subject to the laws of Geor gia 'The second, containing a provision that the people of Georgia should pay a tax to the northern capitalists to protect their manufac tures* What would Georgia do with the first law ? Need I answer that she has already nullified precisely sucha.law, in the present intercourse law, and tlic decision founded thereon- If then she would nullify the first law, can there be a sensible difference, in point of effect or principle, between that and 1 1 ho iast? It is said their difference is in | their consequences, the first applies to a sin- gle state, the other to all the states • and pray what has one sovereign state to do w ith the rights of other sovereign states in their sepa rate capacities ? It is not recollected that "one state has nothing to do With another, only m the stipulated amcles tout have confedera ted them together, and so soon as the con federated government passes a law out of these articles, each state throws itself upon its original separate rights, and may employ whatever means it pleases to prevent tlic ope ration of that lalv, or if it chooses it may sub mit to its authority. The other states may desire the protective system, indeed more than two thirds clamor lor it. Can this be any good reason why Georgia shall submit to it?" Suppose all th other states, like Louisiana and Kentucky, should be brought up and be come reconciled to the late act, can it be con tended that Georgia must become so too? Does it not occur to every mi.id that there cun be no possible dillereuce between robbing the states, by pi .mo meal, of ttieir constitu-j tional rig .ts, or doing it in one general at- j tack upon the whole sisterhood ! 'The reason-, mg that would attempt to make a difference will establish this position. If a rulliin attacks a single individual, he must repel turn mime diulelv, but il he attacks him in company vvith twenty-three others, sixteen of whom are willing to be robbed, and the other seven doubt ng whether they will fight or submit, lie must wait until they make up their minds! Fiorn such logic 1 beg leave most heartily to dissent. All infractions of the constitution are alike, whether they be great or small, so say all divines in reference to the moral law: tlic progress ( the mischief may lie differ out, hut tiie final result will he the same. The beautiful green field may he as effect ually destroyed by the admission of its des poilers at a single gap, as if they had rushed upon its luxuriance lroui a prostrated broad side. Tae fourth case, strange as it may appear, is actually going on, almost unnoticed, at the present time, and though silently, yet as ccr taiuly as the. other three. I aliude to the survey and occupation of the Cherokee nation. Thousands who are now decrying the term nullification,arc perfectly willing that it should not be arrested in the case referred to, and perhaps like the threat in your third resolu tion, would vote against any man who should oe opposed to its success. The last legisla ture authorised a survey and disposition of this whole country, and I understand the survey is made, the commissioners are conven ed, preparation is making for the lottery, the drawing is to commence in October next, and in all probability the possession of the lands will pass from the Indians before the dost of tin year. Now what becomes of the trea ties that have guarantied this very territory to its present inhabitants? The constitu tion of the United States declares all treaties to he the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution and laws of the states to the contrary notwithstanding. The violation of a treaty often involves a nation in war, and hut for the weakness of this nalon, such might have been the consequences of this proceeding on the part of Georgia. Can it be possible that this will not be call ed a plain, and palpable, case of nullification! The matter is too clear ; concerning it then can be no manner of doubt. And althoi gn as an individual, I can not agree that it. right, yet under my doctrine, based upon th opinions of Mr. Jefferson, that a state has tli. right to “judge for itself, as well of infractions (of the compact) as of the mode and measur of redress” and the state having pronounce* these treaties unconstitutional, and therefor ncli and void, if she is invaded bv the g< i eral government, I go to support hot and cisn . "right or wrong," for tny first allegiance due to the state of Georgia. This is my kn of nullification : will your meeting si this If they will, there is no opinion between :f they will not, 1 leave the people of Georg: to judge which doctrine suits their notion's c patriotism best. Now what can tend to blooi. ami revolution stronger than nos f And yet f 1 do not believe ttiat this, or a. y other ease,! will ever produce such a result. The thing j is unreasonable. No oppressive anil uncoil-. stitutional law can be enforced against a sov- j ercign state. It is a free agent in a mere vo-! luntarv confederation which is wholly unne cessary to its internal municipal regulation. Having gone into the union tor external ob jects, the moment these are lost, and an at tempt is made to rob her of her inherent rights, the same free agency that made the compact can dissolveiift f nay it would become so by reason of the fraud of the opposite party. — Force is out of the question. Four times has Georgia tried this matter, & just us certain as fate four times she would hav proved it. And if she will try it the fifth time, she will meet with the same success, for no man can believe that when the alternative is presented to the general government to give up the Union, or to cut the throats of her citizens to pamper the wealth of a privileged order,that the choice will occasion even an instant’s hesitation. In all cases of usurped or assumed powers, Mr Jetiersons doctrine maintains three things. Ist. That nullification is the rightful remedy. 2d. That it is a natural right. 3tf. That “every state,” of its “own autho rity,” ha3 a right to “ nullify within its own limits.” Upon this last it may be necessary to say but a word. A state entitled to “judge for itself, as well of infractions, as the mode and measure of redress,” cannot part with its sov roignty (without becoming dependent) to any other, so as to make that other the judge of its ’-ioluted rights. A submission of this kind implies an obligation to abide by the award, and such a course every body must perceive requires a state to give up its own judgment to the decision of one who may not have half the same interest at stake, or any thing like a proper knowledge of the bearings of that interest. What would have been the consequence if Gov. Troup had waited till he should have submitted the ease of the old and new treaty to a convention of southern states, or if Governor Lumpkin had’ done the same thing in relation to the missionaries or the survey of the Cherokee nation'* Think you not the decision would have been against us ? And what security lias any state against any other result, when she trusts her sever i ign powers to an arbitration ? I subscribe I most unequivocally to ttie doctrine contained in the above three points, and consequently 1 am for a convention ol the people of the state to determine the best method of removing the burthens imposed by this unconstitutional, usurped and unjust law, and whatever that i method may be, I fe 1 bound to submit*!o it. If however you would ask me what tny plan would be, if I were in that convention, I am ready to give it, though I should be willing to yield it for any ether, which the prudence ami good sense of that convention might detail.— 1 would notify the general gevernment of this fact, and that if the law was not repealed, or modified, so as to lay a revenue duty only, which should he adequate to the just wants of the government, on or before the last, day of the first session of the next Congress, that is to say, in the year 1834, and if, further, it should attempt to enforce the law after that J time, thus unrepealed or modified, within th. | limits of Georgia, tins state would lie no lon ger a ine>. her of the Union. This is my inode of resistnnee, but I am free to confess, that i am prepared for any and all other modes that will rid us ot the oppression. We have tried begging till lain tired—we have tried remon strating till 1 am disgusted—wo have tried threatening till J am ashamed, and all this has been going on for the last twelve years, t.ll til- advocates of the system, hardened and confirmed in their encroachments, declare it is fixed and forever settled. Now 1 am tor resistance and i ever to cease till we strangle the monster, or get out of the reach ol its mischief. 'These, gentlemen, are my “sentiments in regard to nullification,” and though they may differ from yours; yet if I know my own heart, 1 have not a solitary wish to disturb one single vinv you may have upon this subject, and 1 rejoice that tiiisfeeling of mine fully sustains me in the declaration, that I entertain no spi rit of proscription againstariy one who differs from me in opinion. As your meeting, by your resolutions was intended to influence the approaching elections, 1 must beg leave to cuter an appeal from your tribunal to the much higher court of that of the good people of Georgia, and to them the balance of my remarks will be addressed. In some public character or other, I have served you for twenty-five years, and though l may not have satisfied you, I know I have never deceived you. I hope I have given suf ficient proof that the love of office has not in duced me to shape rny opinions to conciliate popular favor. lam proud of yourconfidence but you could not desire me to possess it at the expense of my independence. If in my late service 1 have advanced opinions on the floor of Congress you do not approve,or I have misrepresented your sentiments to your op pressors, you ought to turn me out. Unde ceive them. asquickas it is in your power to do so, and I have no doubt they will greatly rejoice t it. It will be an act alike due to their superior discernment of your views, as well as to your own sincerity, and will be certainl. a just, though a severe rebuke to my want of fidelity. But let me pray you not to be deceived by the mere force of words.— You cannot be made to believe that Congress has any thing to do with nullification, or that your liberties aic in danger from the doctrine in hat body. Depend upon it, whenever a vote shall be taken in Congress to nullify the tariff system, it would well behove you to have as many nulliliers there as possible. Y r ou owe it to your understandings io make this enquiry, “what possible harm can a nullifier do us m Congress?” Perhaps, of all the pla ces in tiie world it is the one where lie could Jo the least harm; and if even Congress should attempt to force the tariff upon the South by arms, it is the one which might tie -.hie to do the most good. At least there .\oiild ho more dependence upon his vote to ithhold the necessary supplies, than upon 'hut of an anti-millifirr. It is only at home* you have to dread liirn, if there lxy need for dread: at all. But you mav rely upon it, tliere is | nothing in that name, hostile to vour liberty, i which originated with the greatest friend lib erty has ever nad on this side of the Atlantic ocean.. 'Though a constant effort is made to throw around the word nullification the great est possible odium, and to render it another name lor treason, yet did not Mr. Jell' rson so conceive it. It was employed to rid our selves of the unconstitutional acts of Gieat- Britain ; it was recommended by this immor tal sage to subvert the tyranny of the sedition law ; it has been successfully practised in our own state, and I affirm that many other cases can be adduced from other states. It means, it can mean nothing more than, disobedience to arbitrary and oppressive laws, and in that* sense is there a man among you longer pre pared to obey an edict that exacts half the Intits of your labor, and forces from your hon est ploughman such a slavish contribution as that every furrow which he runs, under the scorching beams of a summer’s sun, yield’s its | produce to a northern nabob ? Who is there I that is riot willing to wage an interminable I war against an extortion that subjects you, | jour property and vour posterity, to a tri.aite j limited only by an interest that has been deaf i to reason, dead to sympathy, blind to jus*ice, and bent only upon the full fruition of its un holy desires? Would to God you could have personally witnessed the late deliberations of Congress. I tell you by all that is* holy in heaven, that this protective system is dictated by tin; manufacturers themselves, that they attend by committees, and agents, around the halls of Congress, as to what must be taxed, what must be free, and what must be the quan tity of the burthens. I tell you in the same j sacred manner, that members ofCongress rise j from their places, and deliberately drawing ■ lrom their desks letters received from their manufacturing constituents, will read out I their demands for an increase of tuxes, <s: they j are as deliberately granted against the ardent | and repeated remonstrances of your protesting ; representatives. I tell you solemnly, that it j is not an uncommon thing for those members I friendly to the manufacturers, to fix the rate el duty on one day, and then change it to a ! higher amount on the next day, at the mere j instigation of manufacturing agents. I tell j you that they assert on the floor of Congress, j that the protective system shall never he re [ pealed, and give as a reason that it was impo sed by tac south, that the nation is now : pledged to continue it, that the manufacturers ■ have twe hundred millions of money invested jin the business, that to take off the system would bankrupt the capitalists, blast the pros pects of the fanners, beggar the operatives in the Factories, and, in fine, reduce the manu facturing districts to communities of paupers, and ratlierthen submit to such a state of things they say they are willing to dissolve the U riion. They present the alternative that YOU j or 'THEY must submit, and they most solemn ly declare they shall not. What hope have you from a prospect so gloomy, if you can be lieve my testimony? And if in charity you may flatter yourselves that I am deceived, if my delusion is honest, can you blame me for iny earnestness in the cause ? Have I not as much stake as you have? Have I not the same country? Havel not a home and a family' among you, whose all is peiilled as well as yours? Nay, more, have 1 not an interest, different from yours, the greatest monied in j terest 1 possess in the world, protected, in common with other monopolies, by this very i system? Had I not reason to btln ve that I had, in an enlarged degree, acquired yotir kind indulgence and increased confidence? Could 1 not have returned home, and by a si ; lent, selfish course, enjoyed my property and | popularity tree from the danger of losing eith -1 ej,if I had been disposed to consider these as the only objects worth regard, or the chief re wards ol a generous and confiding people ? Under circumstances like these, mine indeed must be a fatal infatuation, but only accoreto mo, what before heaven is true, an honest in tention, and you may take back your trust to morrow. I will yield it without a murmur, and the consolation shall he mine, that i can live under any government that you can, arid and will have closed a political life free from the reproaches of conscience. A. 8. CLAYTON. Coutmbcs, 25th August, 1832. Gentlemen —Your letter of the 20th Aug. covering the resolutions of the Richmond meeting with your request to know my “senti ments in regard to nullification,” has just been received. When celled on by a public meeting of my fellow-citizens, 1 feel no difficulty in expressing my opinion upon -subjects of public interest, when that subject is presented tome out of my power to give a specific answer, in regard to a matter that 1 do not distinctly understand. So many versions and readings have been given to the term “ Nullification ,” that 1 do not know in what sense, it is in tended to be used by the meeting; and would prefer postponing a reply, till l could be ;or rectly informed. Least, however, I may be subjected to the imputation of attempting unnecessary delay, by waiting till 1 could re ceive that information, I will endeavor, so f/ir as I am able, to comply with that request, and proceed to give you my opinions. I agree then, with the third Virginia Res olution, which I have long made part of my political text book, and which reads thus : “ That this assembly,” (the Virginia U - gislature,) “ doth cxplicity declare, that it vieevs the powers of the Federal Governriu nt, as resulting from the compact to which C, ( states arc parties,as limited by the pin sense and intention of the instrument constitution the compact, and as no further valid, than are authorised bv the great powersenumerated in in that compact; and that in case of a de liberate, palpable, nod dangerous exercise of other papers, not granted by the ho id compact, the States, irho arc the parties thereto, hart the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the eril, and for j maintaining u ithin then respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining | (o therp. I believe, with Mr. Madison, “That I when resort can lie had to no tribunal | superior in authority to the ties, themselevs, must be the ri P m ihe last resort, Whether lias been pursued or violated." lli; States are the parties to the constd compact in their sovereign capaed, necessity, that tnerc can be no tab, their authority, and consequently lh , { parties to it, they must Uicuiselvtsf 111 * in the last resort, such qu sttoi.s as of sufficient magnitude to lustilv ti, ’• position. 1 believe, therefore,that the „ of the United State s,i snot of su/trior U , ity to the States; and, with Af r i ? “ that tiie judges of the same ar • L'tl mate arbiters of all constitutional < me * that it would be dangerous to i>ra , U ‘ that power, and would lead to the and ’ of an Oligarchy and with hiui IT* lie ve, “ that the ultimate arbiter is acting by their deputies in contentsft 1 am, therefore, Drought to the conci., that the Legislature of the states cam,,/ that the people of each state, acting bill deputies in convention, must, i„ uj which are of sufficient magnitude tin! their interposition,” determine upon th, per mode and measure of redress f 0 violation of the constitution. Ann/* believe, with the meeting v.ould be “ extremely dangerous” at an t for the people to elect delegates toil convention, and invest them with fall m to maintain, preserve and defend tint* ana privileges o, the free citze.is of this si lor fain clearly oi opinion, the peoalc fully competent to act for themselves fc. he safely trusted with their own rights’ no, and interests, even in u a moment of ex# tnent like the present and have good enough to select persons who-wiil | 10 „' e & laiti.fully represent their wishes&fed, l believe every unconstitutional U Congress to be null and void, and has no If force or obligation; and that each state a right to treat it as a.nullity. 1 have entertained a doubt that btatc of Georgia had the right, to clam, the Creek lands within iicr limits, under treaty of the Indian Springs, and to tr as a nullity, the treaty subsequently madi which she was deprived of a part of lhatia 1 believe that tlic State ot Georgia had right to extend her laws over the Chero nation; to try and execute Tasscdls; to convict and sentence, to imprisonment in l cnitentiary, Worcester and Butler, who lused to obey the laws of Georgia; and to! regard the decision of the Supreme f® and tiie intercourse law of the United Sia as unconstitutional and void. I hat the btnte of Georgia has the ri al.-o to survey and grant the kinds in Cherokee nation, to her own citizens, indes oj the said Intercourse law, and the Chin treaties, though the United States should tempt to prevent her by force. And l believe tlie protective system,(wh has been openly avowed and fully reeogt by a large majority in the last session oft' gress,) to he unconstitutional; that it slit have no more force and effect than thei treaty, the intercourse- law or the decisio the Supreme Court; that Georgia has the s right to treat it as a nullity; and thatth the proper time, for her to call a coxvexi of the feoi’le to consider and adopt the per measures to compel its repeal. “ Under tiiese momentous circumstait the precise policy, which Georgia shi adopt, remains to be determined. Rutin that what ever contingencies may arisip will want neither courage to sustain herho nor counsel to temper her courage. Sk no passion for change. She retains the stro est attachment to the system of her adipti But if her ow n government wrong herwi had faith, which would not be emluraili a stranger; if complaints of our injury, ar be ansivred by the infliction of a greatei she is now to be bullied because she mil submit to be quietly duped it needs no s| ot divination, to pronounce, that the port are evil. Yet Ido r.ot despair. Ac;;! plain, appeals to the common sense of countrymen. Georgia sues for no fat advances no fictitious pretentions ofya day ; she contends for rights alone— ti coeval with the republic and emblazon! the rights of its birth. Let the sohertvil of the nation ponder on her claims, unbis >y the flippancy of pasW fanaticism, orol astute follies of scholastic jurisprudence, dor such correction,all may yet be well, if this last hope is to fail: if Georgia isffl proscribed ; if insulting tyrany, marking for a victim, presents to her option, the alternative of danger or degradation — tombs of the Revolution! For you can prod her choice!” My opinions and feelings, have beer' expressed by “Oglethorpe,” in the |* ding paragraph. I do not desire to tlicr. If these opinions subject me M charge of “nullification,” I am willing* bide the consequences. They are bear* trie than any office of the State or thel" States within the gift of t e people. I not give them up; I will not retract lb though even Calhoun or McDuffie show prove and adopt them. I am, gentlemen, very respectful!'’ rours, „ SEABORN JONES- Messrrs^^innmf^^{ir^(infSlntisj^ SIO Reward . . VV; Oil, be given for the apprehension ot N * gro man named JOE Joe is anoo years old, roguish looking, having bad ‘ ,|s eye injured,.. .his back is well marked a.I evidence of his character. Joe having r" 11 for nothing, I offer the above reward l ,f DEAD OR ALIVE. A. R. McLAUGHU* Macon, Sept. 11, 1832. FROM DARIEN TO 7/JRTFOM lIRdI’OSALS will be received by Janie? 1 ry, P. M. Perry’s Mills, Tat rial I f), j| for carrying the Mail in a two horse staT’ Darien to Hartford, once a week. e f, h v>ii b. in the River Road to cross at Ball * ver -• 1 posnls will be reeved mull tho Ist October, will then '.,0 forwarded to the moDt <, ssmji. is, is3’.